D&D 4E [4e] Wizard as good as a Fighter in Standard Melee

[Obryn]

In summary:

If your Fighter and Wizard are not using any of their powers or class abilities, they might as well be two Commoners hacking at each other with garden hoes.

In 4e, Powers are the primary way in which classes are differentiated. Any analysis that ignores powers is flawed.

-O

 

[MrMyth]

Just checking to see if this is correct, because it seems a little strange to me.

In 4e, take a wizard and fighter using the same melee weapon (staff, dagger, etc) in which both are proficient, and happen to have the same strength (i.e. the fighter didn't really go out to max his STR and the wizard wanted to be kind-of tough and upped his STR higher than a normal wizard). Now, if both were to attack an opponent with a standard melee attack (no feats), then is it true that they would both have the same chance to-hit? Even when they are level 10, 20, 30 (assuming they upped their strength equally over the levels)?

Yes, if a wizard is just as well-trained in weapon use as a fighter and just as strong as a fighter, then they have just about the same chance of hitting an enemy with a big piece of metal as the fighter. Of course, the fighter is a true master of the weapon, and can do all sorts of amazing things with that piece of metal, like dice up multiple opponents with it, or strike a dragon so hard it is stunned by the force of the blow, or unleash an intricate weapon dance that strikes down all enemies who approach him. The fighter is also so dangerous with the blade that enemies he corners have no choice but to face him, and escaping his weapon is an almost impossible task.

The wizard can't do any of that, unless he also has become something of an expert in the art of weapons. (Which is to say, has multiclassed into fighter.)

I kind of like that anyone can be competent with a weapon in melee, while those classes designed for it are able to do truly awesome things with a weapon in their hands.

And I don't see it as unreasonable. If a wizard is well-trained in the use of a sword and is quite physically strong, he should be able to swing a blade well enough for it to be relevant!

 

[Doctor Proctor]

The wizard can't do any of that, unless he also has become something of an expert in the art of weapons. (Which is to say, has multiclassed into fighter.)

Even that won't put him on par with the Fighter because he'll still be using his own proficiencies, he won't get the bonus to Fort Defense and he won't get the +1 to his preferred weapon type or the ability to mark except as a one-time encounter power. Additionally, when he does mark it will be the generic mark. He won't get the Combat Challenge or Combat Superiority features.

This is one of the beauties of the multiclass system they have now. You can gain some of the abilities of another class, but often it's only an encounter power that gives you a one time version, and you won't get access to all of their abilities. For example, as a Fighter I've thought about MCing into Cleric, but you can't get Channel Divinity. That would be one of the major reasons that I would do it, was so that I could get Raven's Queen Blessing, but that's solely something that Clerics and Paladins have for themselves.

 

[MrMyth]

Even that won't put him on par with the Fighter because he'll still be using his own proficiencies, he won't get the bonus to Fort Defense and he won't get the +1 to his preferred weapon type or the ability to mark except as a one-time encounter power. Additionally, when he does mark it will be the generic mark. He won't get the Combat Challenge or Combat Superiority features.

This is one of the beauties of the multiclass system they have now. You can gain some of the abilities of another class, but often it's only an encounter power that gives you a one time version, and you won't get access to all of their abilities. For example, as a Fighter I've thought about MCing into Cleric, but you can't get Channel Divinity. That would be one of the major reasons that I would do it, was so that I could get Raven's Queen Blessing, but that's solely something that Clerics and Paladins have for themselves.

And it should be noted, you can also pick up a lot of relevant areas via feats and skills. The wizard can also invest in proficiency in the same weapon, pick up Great Fortitude, Durable and Toughness, and so forth - but they will still not have all the fighter class features, nor as many melee powers. (Which is fine, since they do still have all sorts of spells and other abilities).

 

[Mallus]

Now, if both were to attack an opponent with a standard melee attack...

In 4e, a classes at-will attack powers are their 'standard melee attacks', so the fighter is a much better melee combatant, seeing as they get weapon based melee at-wills and the wizard doesn't.

If true, then it seems the fighter is only a good fighter because of his feats and such.

It's not true.

...while the wizard may have never even touched a melee weapon before the above combat.

If a wizard is proficient with a weapon, then one must also assume they've touched it before.

 

[Nail]

In 4e, take a wizard and fighter using the same melee weapon (staff, dagger, etc) in which both are proficient, and happen to have the same strength (i.e. the fighter didn't really go out to max his STR and the wizard wanted to be kind-of tough and upped his STR higher than a normal wizard). Now, if both were to attack an opponent with a standard melee attack (no feats), then is it true that they would both have the same chance to-hit? Even when they are level 10, 20, 30 (assuming they upped their strength equally over the levels)?

Your point ("Wizards attack as well as fighters") is lost under an avalanche of "ifs", conditions, restrictions, and unrealistic expectations.

For example (one of many): No wizard and fighter (in 4e) will have the same Strength. Nor will both a wizard and Fighter both boost it the same as level progress. Etc.

 

[half-dragon dragon]

While I think pretty much all of the relevant points have been made already, I think its also relevant to understand some of the underlying design principles of 4e. Namely the change to everything being an attack, and making the math through the levels a linear progression.

As I believe was mentioned above, with everything being an attack, each class HAS to be able to hit with their relevant attack (i.e. weapons for martial classes, spells for wizards, etc.). This coupled with the evening of the math led to the standard progression of attack (and everything else) that we see.

I agree with what others have said, the 'what' of attacks (the relevant attack bonus) isn't the important part (since everyone needs to be able to hit with their particular tricks), it's the 'how' of attacks that is what's important (the powers, feats, and other modifiers).

Personally I just like that I can now make a wizard who may be proficient with the longsword and he can, given a relatively decent str score, actually expect to hit even at higher levels.

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Rather than just say exactly what everyone else has said I'll try a more design based approach.

Basic Design Q&A
Q - Why do people play the game?
A - To have fun.

Q - Mechanically what can we do to ensure all players have fun?
A - Give all player's the same mechanical chances of success all else being equal.

Q - If we make the chance of success the same how do we distinguish classes/characters?
A - Flavour of effects, and secondary mechanics.

The above summarises 4E nicely. You can make a character with flat ability scores so they would perform equally in any class. This gives them the same fundamental success rate. So differentiation is achieved via other mechanics. This means core balance always exists and game balance is kept by a wide range of balancing factors not all of which are immediately obvious.

This is why 4E is one of the best designed pen and paper games to date imo. Its underlying assumptions are balanced while at the same time its broader balance is highly flexible and robust. There is a lot to be learnt from 4E about RPG design.

 

[malraux]

If a wizard is proficient with a weapon, then one must also assume they've touched it before.

I think its reasonable to say that the wizard class is based around a magical adventurer, not one who stays in an ivory tower studying. The 4e wizard is one who knows how to cast spells, but also knows basic adventuring tactics as well. So he's probably used his dagger a bit for whittling, gutting an animal, etc.

 

[Bagpuss]

In 4e, the basic core mechanic to hit something is d20+STR+Level/2. This is the same for every class, thus it remains for additional design components to differentiate the classes.

It's not. It is d20+Attribute modifier+level/2

For a Fighter it will be Str.
For a Ranger it could be Str or Dex at range.
For a Rogue it is likely to be Dex.
For a Wizard it is going to be Int, but he's going to hit with magic.
For a Cleric Str in melee or Wis with his divine magic.

Etc. Etc.